Obama the wisest president since Kennedy, does it again!!

[rightwinger]

Obama has created a mess in Iraq and just gave Iran what they want.

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

Actually it was George Washington......

Without him this country wouldn't exist......and thus we never would been in Iraq, so Obama could tuck his tail between his legs and runaway without finishing the job....and thus helped create ISIS.

ISIS didn't exist when Bush left office, so if your theory is correct then every president we had in our history is responsible for the mess we're in today.

It was Bush's blunder of an invasion that created the power vacuum that was filled by ISIS

All part of Bush's ........they will embrace democracy and treat us as liberators

Moonbat bull shit alert!

Logic spill on isle five.

.

I see you fail to address the culpability of your messiah

 

[TooTall]

This is more accurate than the obama sex slave OP realizes.
Kennedy created the Vietnam disaster and sold out an ally giving the enemy exactly what they wanted in the Cuban missile episode.
Obama has created a mess in Iraq and just gave Iran what they want.

And both did it without once single ounce of blood shed. So where's the crime?

No blood shed in Iraq or Vietnam? Are you nuts?

I was talking about the cuban missile crisis and the deal with Iran....please pay attention, okay!!

You were talking about how wonderful Kennedy and Obama are, or were in the case of Kennedy and seem to forget Kennedy started the Vietnam war and more American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than in 7 years under Bush.

Kennedy didn't "start" the Vietnam War. The official US policy the day President Kennedy died on November 22, 1963 was withdrawal of 1,000 military advisors by the end of 1963, and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...

On November 24, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson changed those plans.


Walkthrough: Vietnam in Late 1963

Many of the documents presented below were declassified in October of 1997 by the Assassination Records Review Board. They provide a better window onto the Vietnam withdrawal plans being put into place as early as the spring of 1963.

29 Apr 1963 - 202-10002-10056: JCS-SECDEF DISCUSSIONS ON MONDAY, 29 APRIL 1963
This memo is from a week before the May 1963 SecDef Vietnam conference. It notes that "the Secretary of Defense was particularly interested in the projected phasing of US personnel strength" and brought up the "feasibility of bringing back 1000 troops at the end of this year."

2 Oct 1963 - Summary Record of the 519th Meeting of the National Security Council, White House, Washington, October 2, 1963, 6 p.m.
In this meeting following the return of McNamara and Taylor from Vietnam, President Kennedy and other participants discussed tactics for dealing with the Diem regime, as well as the wording of the proposed plan to implement a 1,000 man withdrawal.

4 Oct 1963 - 202-10002-10093: SOUTH VIETNAM ACTIONS
This memo from General Taylor to the rest of the Joint Chiefs notes that "On Oct 2 the President approved recommendations relating to military matters contained in the trip report...," including a phase-out of US forces so that military functions "can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965." The memo also notifies the Joint Chiefs to "Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963..."

5 Oct 1963 - Memorandum for the Files of a Conference With the President, White House, Washington, October 5, 1963, 9:30 a.m.
In this meeting, Kennedy formalized the 1,000 troop withdrawal plan. Important to the debate over whether or not this withdrawal was part of the "pressure tactics" on Diem being applied at this time, the memo states "The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem."

11 Oct 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 263
With NSAM 263, Kennedy approved the McNamara-Taylor recommendations, including the 1,000 man withdrawal.

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Kennedy increased the number of military"advisers" from approximately 1500 to over 16,000 and changed a Military Assistance and Advisory Group to a Military Assistance Command.

All you got is propaganda put out by Kennedy fans many years after the conclusion of the hostilities. So much for coulda, woulda, shoulda BS.

"From 1955 through 1960 -- the U.S. had between 750 and 1,500 military advisors assisting the Diem government to establish an effective army, organized as the Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), Vietnam. By 1960 MAAGV was training more than fifty ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) Ranger units.

By 1961 the steady progress of the insurgency was near crisis levels. The new Kennedy administration increased American support for the Diem regime to prevent a collapse. By December of 1961, 3,200 U.S. military personnel were in Vietnam as advisers, supported by $65 million in military equipment and $136 million in economic aid. Military assistance was reorganized as the United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), formed under the command of General Paul D. Harkins in February 1962.

By 1963, U.S. military advisors in Vietnam had grown to 16,000 and the Americans were firmly identified with the oppressive Diem regime.

 

[percysunshine]

Obama has created a mess in Iraq and just gave Iran what they want.

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

Actually it was George Washington......

Without him this country wouldn't exist......and thus we never would been in Iraq, so Obama could tuck his tail between his legs and runaway without finishing the job....and thus helped create ISIS.

ISIS didn't exist when Bush left office, so if your theory is correct then every president we had in our history is responsible for the mess we're in today.

It was Bush's blunder of an invasion that created the power vacuum that was filled by ISIS

All part of Bush's ........they will embrace democracy and treat us as liberators

Moonbat bull shit alert!

Logic spill on isle five.

.

I see you fail to address the culpability of your messiah

I see you failed to put dictionary.com on your favorites list again.

.

 

[rightwinger]

You need to take up number Five with Hillary and Kerry since they were among a number of leading Democrats that voted to invade Iraq.

You all keep saying that as if you don't remember that Bush was lying to Congress and the whole country about Iraq having WMDs.....of course they did. Would they if they had known Bush and Cheney were big liars? I seriously doubt it.

Bush was merely taking the word of these two experienced Senators about the WMD's that were serving in the Senate before he got there.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

I have quotes from at least a dozen more Democrats saying virtually the same thing. Were they all lying?

For some reason......you guys neglect to bring up this quote


Sen. Barack Obama's speech against Iraq war

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care.



What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's probably fair to say that Obama and JFK's intellectual capabilities just now are about equal.

That sure doesn't fair well for Republicans...President Obama OWNED a room full of them at the 2010 House Republican retreat in Baltimore. It was so bad for Republicans that Fox News cut away before it was over.

Obama Goes To GOP Lions' Den -- And Mauls The Lions

 

[Bfgrn]

And both did it without once single ounce of blood shed. So where's the crime?

No blood shed in Iraq or Vietnam? Are you nuts?

I was talking about the cuban missile crisis and the deal with Iran....please pay attention, okay!!

You were talking about how wonderful Kennedy and Obama are, or were in the case of Kennedy and seem to forget Kennedy started the Vietnam war and more American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than in 7 years under Bush.

Kennedy didn't "start" the Vietnam War. The official US policy the day President Kennedy died on November 22, 1963 was withdrawal of 1,000 military advisors by the end of 1963, and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...

On November 24, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson changed those plans.


Walkthrough: Vietnam in Late 1963

Many of the documents presented below were declassified in October of 1997 by the Assassination Records Review Board. They provide a better window onto the Vietnam withdrawal plans being put into place as early as the spring of 1963.

29 Apr 1963 - 202-10002-10056: JCS-SECDEF DISCUSSIONS ON MONDAY, 29 APRIL 1963
This memo is from a week before the May 1963 SecDef Vietnam conference. It notes that "the Secretary of Defense was particularly interested in the projected phasing of US personnel strength" and brought up the "feasibility of bringing back 1000 troops at the end of this year."

2 Oct 1963 - Summary Record of the 519th Meeting of the National Security Council, White House, Washington, October 2, 1963, 6 p.m.
In this meeting following the return of McNamara and Taylor from Vietnam, President Kennedy and other participants discussed tactics for dealing with the Diem regime, as well as the wording of the proposed plan to implement a 1,000 man withdrawal.

4 Oct 1963 - 202-10002-10093: SOUTH VIETNAM ACTIONS
This memo from General Taylor to the rest of the Joint Chiefs notes that "On Oct 2 the President approved recommendations relating to military matters contained in the trip report...," including a phase-out of US forces so that military functions "can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965." The memo also notifies the Joint Chiefs to "Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963..."

5 Oct 1963 - Memorandum for the Files of a Conference With the President, White House, Washington, October 5, 1963, 9:30 a.m.
In this meeting, Kennedy formalized the 1,000 troop withdrawal plan. Important to the debate over whether or not this withdrawal was part of the "pressure tactics" on Diem being applied at this time, the memo states "The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem."

11 Oct 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 263
With NSAM 263, Kennedy approved the McNamara-Taylor recommendations, including the 1,000 man withdrawal.

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Kennedy increased the number of military"advisers" from approximately 1500 to over 16,000 and changed a Military Assistance and Advisory Group to a Military Assistance Command.

All you got is propaganda put out by Kennedy fans many years after the conclusion of the hostilities. So much for coulda, woulda, shoulda BS.

"From 1955 through 1960 -- the U.S. had between 750 and 1,500 military advisors assisting the Diem government to establish an effective army, organized as the Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), Vietnam. By 1960 MAAGV was training more than fifty ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) Ranger units.

By 1961 the steady progress of the insurgency was near crisis levels. The new Kennedy administration increased American support for the Diem regime to prevent a collapse. By December of 1961, 3,200 U.S. military personnel were in Vietnam as advisers, supported by $65 million in military equipment and $136 million in economic aid. Military assistance was reorganized as the United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), formed under the command of General Paul D. Harkins in February 1962.

By 1963, U.S. military advisors in Vietnam had grown to 16,000 and the Americans were firmly identified with the oppressive Diem regime.

"In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists"
President John F. Kennedy -Sept 2, 1963

Propaganda? I provided official records. Even LBJ's Deputy National Security Adviser admits that Kennedy would have pulled out...

JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation

My essays in Boston Review and Salon established that the plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965 existed. And that President Kennedy had decided to implement that plan. In 2003, this was controversial. Many historians had denied it. Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, and Arthur Schlesinger were exceptions. They were right, and documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act proved them right. The issue was resolved by early 2008 when Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, opened his reply to my letter in the New York Review of Books with these words:

Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that "there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.“

So did Kennedy and Johnson's Defense Secretary...Robert McNamara...

McNamara said, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."



Vietnam was Lyndon B. Johnson's war.

Lyndon B. Johnson's escalation, 1963–69
On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism... must be joined... with strength and determination."[174] The pledge came at a time when the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating, especially in places like the Mekong Delta, because of the recent coup against Diệm.[175] Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October),[176] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[177][178] to expand the war.


Timeline of the Vietnam War

1961: US President Kennedy pledged extra aid to South Vietnam

1962: The number of US military advisors increased from 700 to 12,000

1963: President Diem was killed in a military coup 15,000 US military advisors were in South Vietnam

1964: the Gulf of Tonkin incident; Congress passed the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Resolution’; America bombs targets in North Vietnam; NLF attacked US air bases

1965: ‘Operation Rolling Thunder’ started; first US combat troops were sent to Vietnam in March; by the end of the year there were 200,000 US troops there; first major conventional clash between USA and NVA at Ia Drang

1966: 400,000 US troops were in Vietnam

1967: 490,000 US troops in Vietnam; Nguyen Van Thieu became President of South Vietnam

1968: Tet Offensive; demonstrations against the war started in America; My Lai massacre; peace talks began in Paris; 540,000 US troops in Vietnam; anti-Vietnam War riots in Chicago (August)

1969: Nixon ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia; ‘Vietnamization’ started; Nixon announced the start of US troop withdrawals; Ho Chi Minh died; 480,000 US troops in Vietnam; My Lai massacre made public in November

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama fails without his TelePrompter

That's a conservative lie. He has spoken many times without a teleprompter....you're just smarting because of the video showing what a doofus Bush was. Must hurt.

That video is a "lie"? Funny how when Bush stumbles over his lines in a speech...he's a "doofus" but when Obama turns into a babbling idiot when his teleprompter stops working...that's a "conservative lie". Come on, Mertex...admit it...in many ways Barry is nothing more than an anchor man reading material someone else wrote for him that MAKES him look intelligent. When you take away his "crutch" he shows that he doesn't even understand his own proposed legislation...which is understandable because he's never been smart enough to write good legislation...he ALWAYS has someone else do it for him.

 

[westwall]

perhaps you should point out who is trolling when the obama deranged loons post?

i figure at least this one isn't nasty and ugly. *shrug*

Believe me I do. The ultra righties detest me as much as the ultra lefties. I'm an equal non troll supporter!

 

[Bfgrn]

It's probably fair to say that Obama and JFK's intellectual capabilities just now are about equal.

That sure doesn't fair well for Republicans...President Obama OWNED a room full of them at the 2010 House Republican retreat in Baltimore. It was so bad for Republicans that Fox News cut away before it was over.

Obama Goes To GOP Lions' Den -- And Mauls The Lions

Obama fails without his TelePrompter

That's a conservative lie. He has spoken many times without a teleprompter....you're just smarting because of the video showing what a doofus Bush was. Must hurt.

That video is a "lie"? Funny how when Bush stumbles over his lines in a speech...he's a "doofus" but when Obama turns into a babbling idiot when his teleprompter stops working...that's a "conservative lie". Come on, Mertex...admit it...in many ways Barry is nothing more than an anchor man reading material someone else wrote for him that MAKES him look intelligent. When you take away his "crutch" he shows that he doesn't even understand his own proposed legislation...which is understandable because he's never been smart enough to write good legislation...he ALWAYS has someone else do it for him.

WHAT video is a lie?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Obama has created a mess in Iraq and just gave Iran what they want.

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

 

[tigerred59]

No, I have voted all my 57 years of life and Obama makes all you white clowns look pale and stupid, including KKKlinto!!

You can't legally vote until you're 18 so you're guilty of voter fraud. No surprise, seeing how you're such a completely misinformed democrat.

Misinformed, how?

Obama fails without his TelePrompter

That's a conservative lie. He has spoken many times without a teleprompter....you're just smarting because of the video showing what a doofus Bush was. Must hurt.

That video is a "lie"? Funny how when Bush stumbles over his lines in a speech...he's a "doofus" but when Obama turns into a babbling idiot when his teleprompter stops working...that's a "conservative lie". Come on, Mertex...admit it...in many ways Barry is nothing more than an anchor man reading material someone else wrote for him that MAKES him look intelligent. When you take away his "crutch" he shows that he doesn't even understand his own proposed legislation...which is understandable because he's never been smart enough to write good legislation...he ALWAYS has someone else do it for him.

One has a working brain cell, the other's is on permanent vacation....duh!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama has created a mess in Iraq and just gave Iran what they want.

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Obama has created a mess in Iraq and just gave Iran what they want.

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama has created a mess in Iraq and just gave Iran what they want.

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

 

[Bfgrn]

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

 

[Oldstyle]

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

 

[Bfgrn]

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

 

[Bfgrn]

What an idiot. It was Bush that created the mess in Iraq, the reason that ISIS is.

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

WHY is it so hard for you to understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation? There was no possible SOFA agreement that Iraq would sign that would protect American soldiers from legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

 

[Oldstyle]

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

So let me see if I follow your argument here...

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL

It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, it was Obama abandoning the success in Iraq, all to appease his 1960's neocon sheeple, that led to the Mad Max sequel we're stuck with now.

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

WHY is it so hard for you to understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation? There was no possible SOFA agreement that Iraq would sign that would protect American soldiers from legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Yet George W. Bush...who you progressives have labeled the "village idiot...somehow managed to obtain a SOFA from Iraq...but it was IMPOSSIBLE for Barack Obama "the smartest President EVER!" according to progressive theology to do the same?

What Panetta revealed in his book was that Obama made little to no effort to ever obtain a new SOFA. That's the reality of what took place...despite the assurances of Colin Kahl!